DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

ALF to target students?!

468 posts / 0 new
Last post
powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 17:06

I think you do need to have a philisophical background when discussing rights. Blazing in with large philosophical terminology confuses people and puts them of discussion, but to just say kicking a dog is wrong- so don't do it, makes it to simple.

Also for the main philosophers on animal rights such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer and that guy who was banned from coming into the UK recently who I cant remember the name of- their works I find complex to understand. I've worked hard on Regan's book 'the case for animal rights' but I do find it really confused

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 17:24

I'm not saying the ability to feel pain is the basis to grant rights, read the paragraph you quoted me from, please I don't like repeating myself!!

Ghost_of_the_re...
Offline
Joined: 16-06-04
Jan 31 2006 17:32
revol68 wrote:
fuck me i never thought i'd argue in favour of animal rights, but jack's debasement of animals to the level of just resources makes me want to take a big hot brand to his back and scorch "BUMMER" in it.

Afterall on what basis is Jack above a resource for our enjoyment?

try below

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 17:51

You don't need to be in the animal rights movement to be against animal abuse.

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
Jan 31 2006 17:57
Jack wrote:
Non-sequiteur.

The ability to feel pain or whatever isn't the basis of judgement for the worth of something.

Do try not to lump me together with 'the ARs', but this is just stodgy. 'Isn't the basis' in relation to what? For whom? The prerequisite of rights? In which case, do you think rights are just naturally acquired? Pop out of nowhere? Why, for instance, couldn't the capacity for pain be an adequate characteristic in determining 'the worth' of something? If someone was not to eat meat in the belief that it caused pain, suffering etc. why exactly would they be 'wrong'?

*non sequitur roll eyes

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 18:02

Who's the 'AR's?'

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Jan 31 2006 18:34
powertotheimagination wrote:
Who's the 'AR's?'

Them. They are the "AR's"...

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
Jan 31 2006 18:56
powertotheimagination wrote:
Who's the 'AR's?'

In nearly every sense I would be an 'AR', Animal Rights activist, (for example I'm vegan out of personal and ethical choice) but I don't accept the principle concept of Rights nor the tactics or direction of those who generally do.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 18:56

Is it the eighty year old women at the end of my road who needs a stick to walk and reaches the fastest of 3mph, or is it the militant animal-obsessed black bloc smashing windows and hugging dogs?

Hugging the dog is better I suppose then kicking it.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 18:59

The AR movement is to big to define, its not worth trying. Although you could always take the easy route and see them all as obsessive black bloc ones that you read about in the papers. I'm surprised, the second view is often held by political activists yet they are the first to refute the portrayal of political activists in the newspapers confused

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 19:15

Hi

There are no such things as "rights". And even if there were, animals would have none.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 19:17

Thats avoiding the question!!

No one has yet fully stated why animals don't have rights, except for the pretty hollow explanation that they are inanimate objects.

LR please expand on what rights are, as you see them, and then why animals don't have them.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 19:18

Hi

Even if there are rights and animals have them then they have enough and don’t need anymore. The existing situation already provides a more-than-adequate level of animal welfare.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 19:20

Hi

Quote:
No one has yet fully stated why animals don't have rights

Because nothing has “rights”.

Quote:
except for the pretty hollow explanation that they are inanimate objects.

Animation does not give you “rights”. Does an unborn child have rights?

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 19:20

Thats avoiding the Q's again.

LR please expand on what rights are, as you see them, and then why animals don't have them.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 19:22

Nothing has rights. So can I stab you in the arm with a pencil and when you complian I can say 'hey, you know what, you don't have rights?' I'm sure you'd disagree with this, and I would to, yet if you nothing has rights I can do whatever I want to you, it means f-all after all if nothing has rights??

An unborn child isn't a living being in the sense of an animal is, same for a unborn animal. The animal is alive and has a complex CNS system, or even a small CNS system, that links physical pain to an emotional pain. I've stated all this before.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 19:23

Hi

Rights are nonexistent things that people invent to explain their moralist politics. I suppose that may mean that animals have them, you've got me.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 19:25

So use the example of a rapist. If someone rapes someone else, the victim shouldn't complain? Their rights cannot be vialated, after all they do not have rights?

If a goverment drops bombs on villages killing many civilians, if no one has rights, then whats wrong with that?

Also taking it back to me stabbing you, if you don't have rights, then why can't I hurt you. I like stabbing you with a pencil, I feel good from doing it, and I acknowledge it makes me feel good, so why cannot I feel good of me hurting you if I am not violating any rights as they do not exist.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 19:28

Hi

Quote:
Nothing has rights

Well done.

Quote:
So can I stab you in the arm with a pencil and when you complian I can say 'hey, you know what, you don't have rights?' I'm sure you'd disagree with this, and I would to, yet if you nothing has rights I can do whatever I want to you, it means f-all after all if nothing has rights??

Absolutely. Although in practice I would simply dispose of you as hostile, “complaining” is liberal rightist shit.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 19:30

Dispose of me as hostile? Kill me? But I don't want my rights violated, you are violating my rights by proposing (I assume) to kill or hurt me.

There is a reason why alot of the rights people have exist, granted it isn't a solid, set area, but I cannot see how dismissing rights can help anyone or animals.

Edit- if rights are just some sort of philosophical construction that you see conflict with, this is no reason to not grant them to animals.

Edit again, if you do not see anything as having rights why shouldn't someone against vivisection injure a vivisector for their harming of animals? If the vivisector has no rights surely there is no violation of rights there?

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 19:35

Hi

Quote:
So use the example of a rapist. If someone rapes someone else, the victim shouldn't complain? Their rights cannot be vialated, after all they do not have rights?

It’s not “rights” that makes rape bad, it’s the fact that it’s against the interests of this species to allow such hostility within our ranks.

Quote:
If a goverment drops bombs on villages killing many civilians, if no one has rights, then whats wrong with that?

If it was a village of my enemies? Nothing. It might cause a pleasure overload I suppose.

Quote:
Also taking it back to me stabbing you, if you don't have rights, then why can't I hurt you. I like stabbing you with a pencil, I feel good from doing it, and I acknowledge it makes me feel good, so why cannot I feel good of me hurting you if I am not violating any rights as they do not exist.

If you stab me enough you will no longer exist, it’s not a question of “rights”.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 19:37

Rights are concepts and philosophical constructs, of course, all of society is, but this still does not answer that these rights should not be granted to animals as the same they are to humans (I don't mean human rights to animals, I mean grant rights to animals).

You can argue all day on philosophy and rights, I would try, but it does get abit static and, to be honest boring, i'm not that big on philisophical discussions, don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to 'back out' of a debate, but it can be abit boringish.

Anyway the topic was on vivisection, which can be criticised from a solid scientific standpoint (but this standpoint again could be incorrect and nothing but a false sense of reality from the social constructs of statistics...)

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Jan 31 2006 19:38
powertotheimagination wrote:
No one has yet fully stated why animals don't have rights, except for the pretty hollow explanation that they are inanimate objects.

Now then, this is a bee

Do we say a bee has the right to refuse to pollonate a feild? If so, how do you propose global agriculture would cope? Hence the bees ''rights'' are subordinated to human need, do you have a problem with this. Do you, as a dedicated animal rights activist, advocate liberation for bees?

On another note, does the bee have the cranial capacity to refuse to pollonate a feild? This seems unlikely to me, despite the fact that hey buzz around nicely and are really cute and fluffy. Have their been substantial organised bee rebellions against their ''oppression''? No i don't think so.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 19:38

If rights do not exist in any sense, for human or animals what makes something 'wrong' then? Or is nothing 'wrong'?

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 19:39

Hi

revol68 wrote:
Again, Lazy as much as I hate "rights" arguments I think your making a complete tit of yourself with your argument

Go on then, but be gentle with me.

revol68 wrote:
of course rights don't exist, anymore than the responsilities, love, sadness or even communism. They are rather conceptual frameworks that we use to naviagate with, I just happen to think rights are a very poor tool for such naviagation.

I agree with that too, I can hold both positions simultaneously. Talk about all power to the imagination.

Quote:
Now stop trying to be a smartarse.

You’ve got me. Sorry.

Quote:
p.s. I reckon you don't think anything exists outside the individual and their pleasure

That’s not true. I believe in the existence of a lot of stuff.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 19:43

I cannot understand what you mean by the bee refusing to pollinate a field. Pollinating a field is in a bee's instincts, like a dogs instincts to...well do what dogs do, and the variety of human instincts. I do not know of bees refusing to pollinate fields, I do know of people who see the enclosing of bee's in a hive as wrong. You answered why a bee would not refuse to pollinate a field when you said ''does the bee have the cranial capacity to refuse to pollonate a feild?'', no it dosen't, but that dosen't mean that we should cause harm to them.

I don't get what you mean by the bees 'organising' against oppression. The bees have a strong hierarchy, they are all vertial slaves to the queen! So if you were being ironic thats fine, if you were being in any way serious, I can discuss it further with you.

[/i]

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 19:47

Hi

Quote:
If rights do not exist in any sense, for human or animals what makes something 'wrong' then? Or is nothing 'wrong'?

Only action can be ‘right or ‘wrong’. Wrong things are hostile to me. That is to say, they compromise my economic security or political liberty.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 19:50

What about your personal health or emotional stability, do they not come into it as they are socio-economic? Causing physical harm to someone violates their rights and can in turn affect their socio-economic posistion, take for example a workman injured at work- his rights to work safely were violated leading to, say, a broken leg, firstly his rights are violated, secondly his socio-economic posistion is damaged by his taken time of work.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Jan 31 2006 19:58
powertotheimagination wrote:
I cannot understand what you mean by the bee refusing to pollinate a field. Pollinating a field is in a bee's instincts, like a dogs instincts to...well do what dogs do, and the variety of human instincts. I do not know of bees refusing to pollinate fields, I do know of people who see the enclosing of bee's in a hive as wrong. You answered why a bee would not refuse to pollinate a field when you said ''does the bee have the cranial capacity to refuse to pollonate a feild?'', no it dosen't, but that dosen't mean that we should cause harm to them.

So basically you do agree that the bee's interests should be subordinated to those of humans. If you agree then some harm must come to the bees through their incarceration no? If you agree that bees can be used in this way, then why not other animals?

As for the other part in the post I was mostly being ironic and parodying ''animal liberation'' type nonsense, however, you do make assumptions about the bees as hive insects. Considering that female bees often try to lay eggs in defiance of a queen it is likely they are not the mindless drones they are often portrayed as.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 19:58

Hi

Quote:
What about your personal health or emotional stability, do they not come into it as they are socio-economic?

They come into it as they are socio-economic. Are you countering anything in particular?

Quote:
Causing physical harm to someone violates their rights and can in turn affect their socio-economic posistion

It’s not like that. Causing harm to the wrong person is naughty and you will be punished if you do it.

Love

LR